Landlord "We are actually willing to send you a lease for any time period you would like as long as we can agree a 90-day notification-to-leave clause. Basically we don't want to get stuck on short notice. "

Me: "Ok great. Can I have a month to month lease with a 90-day notification-to-leave clause"

Landlord:"Sorry we are doing multiple lease renewals right now and I spoke incorrectly. we need a one year lease minimum with a 90 day cancellation clause I will send that thanks"

What is the purpose of the additional "90-day notification-to-leave clause"? His original concern was that I can leave at anytime(mind you i've been on month to month for the last 3 years). So the 90-day notification-to-leave clause takes away that concern.

Take it, this lease gives you exactly what you are looking for, rent protection for a year, and 90 day notice requirement only.

The lease may be due to nuanced advantages of your region's legal terms, his need to show lease for continued financing, or just to keep the paperwork simpler on his side (all tenants on the same paperwork).

I had that freedom for the last 3 years and established myself as a reliable trouble free tenant. Now I have to pay for it out of thin air? I just don't understand the logic.

Quote

If this is the first time he has raised the rent in FOUR years, and all he is asking is $50 more and a two year lease, then I'd say he is being very reasonable. I think it is unreasonable to complain about it actually.

My biggest issue is he obviously knew he was going to do this for a while and sent the new lease request close enough to 1/1/2016 that it wouldn't give me any real time to have any other option. If he told me back in September "Hey I wanted to give you a heads up, the taxes have been going up so Im probably going to request a rent increase and require a new lease at the beginning of the year..etc." that would have been nice. That would allow me to make a decision with options. I understand he's not required to give me 4 months notice. As a fellow human being it would be nice gesture just like Im not required to be nice enough to allow him to use my parking space. The same space that allows him to change the amount of money that he does to me. I do it because its a nice gesture even though I pay for it. Just treat people like people and not faceless money producing objects. Now I know where I stand with him.

Check my other threads. No one says more often than I do that annual leases protect tenants rather than landlords. I use MTM leases with my tenants BECAUSE I know a lease protects them, not me, while the MTM protects me, not them. I have NO idea where you get the idea that I said anything opposite to that.

As far as the logic of having to pay for it. You are not entitled to a continued discount for the rest of your life. The fact of the matter is there is no "right" for you to have a MTM lease at the same rate. He can run his business however he wants. You're welcome to take your business elsewhere, where you will likely pay for the premium you are asking for, or pay still higher rent on a lease, since he is well below market and has barely raised your rent at all. Here you are like an entitled person demanding a MTM lease without compensating him for it. He is already leaving money on the table with you. Now you feel entitled to more? Wow...How about you GIVE him something and GET something. He is already giving you discounted rent, and here you are wanting better terms but not giving him anything else in return.

This is like the guy who complained that his landlord didn't put him up in a hotel for a week while the roof was being replaced. The guy worked nights. Somehow he thought that made it the landlords responsibility to put him up in a hotel when maintenance that can only be done during the day needs to be done, because of HIS job choice. So the landlord should pay out of pocket for the hotel because he happens to have a tenant who works nights. Ridiculous, there is such an entitlement mentality here.

I am so confused by this thread. You have an apartment in a location you like, at a price that is good, and a decent landlord. You don't like that his wife sometimes asks to use your parking space (occasionally) when she is in town. Just say no to that if it bothers you that much (but it sounds like you aren't using it at the times she asks). A $50 increase in rent after 4 years is completely reasonable. I don't understand why you are upset about "holding" onto repairs to avoid a rent increase. You made that choice, so the repairs weren't made because you didn't report them. There you go. Now you can report them. The landlord can hardly be held accountable for not making repairs that you didn't report to him. In 4 years his property tax probably went up at least $50 a month. If you don't like the lease then give notice and move. My experience is that it takes approximately one weekend to find a new place to live. If you don't want to move, don't want to find a place "as good" as the place you are in, etc. - then suck it up and sign the year least and get on w/ your life. I wouldn't expect more than 30ish days notice of any change as a tenant and wouldn't give much more than that as a landlord. Who cares how long ago he "knew" he was going to make this change - if you are MTM then you get 1 months notice.

You should expect periodic price increases on a desirable property in a desirable city. That's just business. Even rent controlled apartments in SF increase in price by a small percentage per year.

I would not want to be on a two year lease without some option to terminate early. For example, I would want to be able to terminate w/ a few months' notice for a fee. I guess there's always the option of subletting if it's desirable. You might lose some money on the transaction if you need to do it in a hurry, but it would be OK.